TQD – 40+ USTA Leagues

With the recent addition of the 40+ USTA Leagues, do you think it is good to have this extra league added and is it a positive /negative to play it at this time of year?

I have talked to numerous people on this subject matter and of course I have gotten both positive and negative feedback. Some people like it as it helps level the playing field by limiting the younger avec players, matches are scheduled outdoors (weather permitting) which lowers court cost dramatically, and matches are for the most part played on the weekdays after work. Some of the negative feedback is that the are less players and teams signed up, another way for the USTA to make more money (registration fees for each participating league), people going on vacation and may not be available to commit, and the season seems to be shortened /condensed depending on the number of teams.

From my perspective, I think it’s a good thing as it carries tennis leagues throughout the summer and it can help those teams and players that qualify for Sectionals later this summer. I think our local teams, especially the 40+ fans have a better chance of winning a Sectional title or two. Typically we have not faired well in the 18+ Sectionals as alot of the other regions carry younger players as well as having an over abundance of players to choose from. Face it, our region is getting older, the influx of new players have been stagnant for years.

What do you think? And in your comments an the Tennis Blog would like to hear your views and thoughts.

Sherwin So

9 Responses

You bring up a good point although it’s not the question you posed to the readers. I think the local USTA directors have to figure out how to attract younger local players to join USTA teams and compete in the USTA leagues. Also, I think some of the rules for self raters may discourage some younger local players from joining. I think blindly labeling all former college tennis players with a certain rating isn’t fair. The idea that every player the plays 4 years of DIII college tennis should be rated a 4.5 automatically is absurd. I think the USTA should look at possibly changing those rules for former college players. That would be a good starting point.

Basically I wanted to give feedback on what I have heard from players that I have talked to since the new leagues started. I have my opinion on it and yes the USTA is looking into attracting younger players but I think the issue for younger players as it stands is money. I believe you and I had this discussion with Sue Wold on this and attracting college students was a good idea but what if comes down to is money or lack there of. A college student may not have the resources to pay $40 for membership fees, $20 to register on a team and $20-30 to play one indoor match. If you are looking at our region, or issue lies in people leaving the area.

As for former college players bring rated higher, I think for the most part they have that part right. Division I player typically is at least a 5.0 player, maybe D II and D III players could be rated at least a 4.5, but that is somethings USTA may want to look at on a case by case basis.

The issues Sherwin stated are spot on. Weighing the pros and cons I would say I’m glad there is more tennis to play at this time of year, even if the leagues are a little small right now. Hopefully it improves next year. I agree with J that the usta should revise their self-rating standards. Having rules for ANY school in a particular college division is ridiculous. With no other info, a #7 player from Siena College and a #1 player from Stanford are both rated 5.0 based strictly on playing at a D1 school. Crazy. That is a big reason our area will not win sectionals/nationals. Our Northern Dl grads from Siena, Skidmore, UAlbany, etc, are rated 5.0 and will get pummeled by D1 grads from Florida, Southern Cal, Texas, etc. Same goes for Dll and Dlll grads in 4.0 or 4.5 tennis. They have to consider the schools they attended. Come on USTA!

The USTA automatic rating system is annoying, but it is very simple to appeal. As a former DIII player I was automatically rated a 4.5, but was able to get that rating dropped to a 3.5 with no issue (and no, I am not sandbagging, it has just been 10 years since I played and I was never a 4.5 to begin with).

But as someone who is not 40 yet, it does make me sad to not have a league to play in during the summer. So no, I don’t like the 40+ summer leagues. I wish they were 18+ (or maybe 30+).

I was born and raised in the Capital District and played plenty of tennis during my upbringing and early adolescence. I now live in the St. Louis Missouri area and I play in the 40+ USTA League here. I know there are problems with accurate ratings and scheduling but I enjoy the league. Like most of you out there I have a busy work schedule and it’s tough for me to schedule match play doubles matches. The 40+ gives me that option and I get to play against many different people. Our 40+ League in St. Louis, which has a similar population size to the Capital District Area, has 5 teams and we play each other 2 twice with the winning team going to a regional tournament when the season is over. The quality of play has been excellent. Great blog topic. Take care everybody. Trevor Rees (O’Fallon, MO) formely of East Greenbush, Albany Tennis Club, Southwood Tennis Club, and Columbia High School.

The winter/spring league that just concluded was the 18+ Tennis League. The current leagues that are playing are the 40+ Leagues. I think that is why there are more players in the 18+ league than there are in the 40+ at the moment. I think next year, the 40+ league will pick up more players and teams since this is the first year it was introduced.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.

Tennis Search

Keyword search across all the entries in this blog.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.